|
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:46 From: Richard Wright Subject: Graphic warnings
I begin my Torts course each year with the actual facts in the infamous McDonald's coffee spill case, which invariably results in all but a couple of students reversing their prior opinion that the case was ridiculous. I also discuss McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651 (7th Circuit 1998), another case involving very hot coffee served at a drive-up establishment which produced third-degree (skin and nerve charring and destroying) burns when spilled on the non-driver occupant in the car. In McMahon, Judge Easterbrook agrees that very few people know that coffee when spilled can cause such third-degree burns (or even that people know what a third degree burn is), and that a warning should therefore be provided if feasible, but then upholds the summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that it is not feasible, as a matter of law, to provide an adequate warning. What he describes as being adequate (for a perfect, extremely detailed risk-utility analysis) would require, among other things, a course in thermodynamics. I ask my students whether they could come up with a good warning and, during the discussion, suggest only a bit facetiously "what about a picture of someone's charred nether regions" (as occurred in the McDonald's case) along with "likely if spilled in car"? My students this year brought to my attention the very recent adoption in England of legislation requiring such graphic warnings on cigarette packages. For some of the graphic images, see here.
Richard W. Wright
<<<< Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next Message >>>>>
|
»
»
»
»